About your Search

20131101
20131130
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)
that massachusetts enacted in 2006 under governor romney. >> we can reasonably expect the numbers will grow substantially over the next five months as they did in massachusetts which enrolled only .3%. or 123 people in its first month. we know from experience in the bay state that people tend to research and consider their options talk things over with their families before making a purchase. >> joining me now, from "the washington post," and professor of economics at mit who worked on the massachusetts health care reform law and -- the affordable care act. okay, professor, it is up to you to tell us how -- the affordable care act is doing, compared to the early days of the massachusetts law. >> the big issue, it is too early to make a strong conclusion. the bottom line is people don't sign up until they have to. >> we are doing better than massachusetts. as secretary sebelius said .3% in massachusetts. 1 1/2% of the federal level. goal of 7 million. that is not a relevant comparison. relevant comparison happen in march. we need new focus on not the week to week and day-to-day, to date. >>
. we have seen it work in massachusetts. that would be as -- as undisruptive as possible. in good faith fried to write the law so people could keep their care. we believe ultimately they will be better off when they're buying health care through the marketplace. they can access tax credits and benefiting for choice and competition. but obviously we didn't do a good enough job in terms of how we crafted the law. that's something that i regret. that's something that we are going to do everything we can to get fixed. in the meantime. >> that sound like you are supportive of this legislation, the various things that are out there? >> we are looking at a range of options. one thing i want to emphasize though, chuck. everybody is acting as if the existing market was working. fact of the matter is that a whole lot of people who are in this individual market who are big health care on their own, not getting it through their employer, they might be happy with it this year, and then suddenly next year the cost got jacked up by 15%, 20%. the average increase on premiums in this individual market f
basically in massachusetts right now can still happen across the country. i don't want to put -- i don't want to turn this into just blaming republicans. when obama says they fumbled the ball, he's right. this is ultimately the administration's responsibility for how botched the rollout and the website has been. i don't think what they anticipated was that 3 1/2 years after this law was enacted they wouldn't have gotten even the tiniest ounce of cooperation from republicans. when you compare that to massachusetts, when it became the law of the land in massachusetts, it stopped becoming a partisan issue. and there was a coming together of both sides to make the law work, to put public service campaigns together, to get people to vote, to get civic organizations engaged. something we haven't seen because this has been a contested political issue since march 2010. that's not the only reason. the administration deserves a ton of blame here and the future of this thing is in doubt right now. i would say that's an element of it. if they didn't fully anticipate that, i'm not sure they should
helped write the massachusetts health care law. professor gruber, this number, the 1.5% is what we've been wondering about since we first started hearing the stories about policy cancellations and people having to get new insurance and what we wanted to know is how many of these people will actually end up paying more? some estimates said maybe 5% but it turns out to be something very low. >> well, the main point, lawrence, is that most americans are simply not affected. most americans get their health insurance from their employer, the government are not affected. it's the roughly 4% of americans who buy health insurance on their own who could potentially see higher prices and of that, only about a third or about 1.5% of people actually end up paying more for their health insurance under this law. >> i want to put up a graph that indicates exactly what you said, i think one of our numbers in it might be slightly off but we have a graph showing that 80%, 80% are unaffected by the affordable care act in terms of their costs, 15% are the, are uninsured who will get health insurance t
is the real problem. the real problem is that we have shown in massachusetts that this can work. that young people will sign up. that the incentives will work. the problem we have now is that, there has been so much dust thrown up. so many charges hurled against the affordable care act. that i worry that many of the people that we need off to soon up in order for the pools to work in order for most people to get the benefits that michael was talking about. will hold back. they went sign up. and i think that is frankly part of the republican strategy. you see it failed. i think the affordable care act could work if given of a chance. all this commotion is not going to make things easier. >> michael. you wrote a become about the struggles of implementing the new deal under fdr. there are similarity here aren't there? >> i think anybody who, who examines the 1930s. and the new deal has to be struck by the parallels between what happened then and what has been happening now. i think the lesson is that any time you up end this status quo as franklin roosevelt did in the 1930s. barack obama has d
californians into the program is is a very good sign. we remember that in massachusetts when they passed their health care law in 2006, only 123 people signed up in the first month and the rush came at the end. so all of these are -- these are good signs for the exchanges and for the affordable care act. >> david, i hate to quibble with a nobel prize winning economist but i think that paul has not compared the correct numbers or the ones that are most relevant to the measurement of success in california. it is true that about 22% of the population is 18 to 34 years old and 32.5% of new enrollees are in that age group. but that group represent over 40% of the uninsured. about 42% of the uninsured. california is not capturing them all but they never expected at this stage to be capturing them all. they had a more modest expectation in this first year. and that's one of the things that is present across the board in the expectations. >> i think the other thing is beyond the numbers are the human stories. the washington post had an extraordinarily poignant story. all of these people, many of
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)